Brannen v. Bouley
| Decision Date | 30 June 1930 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
| Parties | ARTHUR W. BRANNEN v. EUGENE P. BOULEY & another. |
February 4, 1930.
Present: RUGG, C.
Contract, Of employment, Validity. Unlawful Interference. Equity Jurisdiction, To restrain unlawful interference. Evidence Competency, Statement by coconspirator, Res gestae.
A contract in writing between the proprietor of a towel supply and laundry business and an employee provided that it might be terminated by either party on a week's notice to the other, or by the employer without notice if the employee did not perform his duties properly; and that the employee, when he left the employment, would "not directly or indirectly for the period of two years from the time of leaving such employ solicit for himself or for any other person any of the laundry business or customers of . . . [the employer nor] attempt in any manner whatever to procure for himself or for any other person any of the established line of laundry customers of" the employer nor
"solicit or collect, either for himself or for any other person or corporation, any laundry, commonly termed wet wash, within a radius of four miles from the laundry plant of" the employer. In a suit in equity to enjoin the employee and a new employer of his from conduct in violation of the contract, it appeared that it was not necessary, in order to protect the plaintiff in his business, to prohibit the employee from collecting wet wash in the entire territory described in the contract, and that the excess of territory named in the contract was not of trivial importance. Held that it was consistent with public policy that the contract should be enforceable in equity even though it did not specifically indicate the municipal divisions from which the inhibited area was made up.
A contention of the defendants in the suit above described that the plaintiff should not be permitted to prosecute his suit because he was a member of an organization, whose members were engaged in the wet wash laundry business and who would like to see the plaintiff prevail, was dismissed by this court without discussion.
A master who heard the suit above described found that four persons other than the employee or his new employer were familiar with breaches of the contract by the employee and either aided or encouraged him; that one of them received some of the plaintiff's customers for bringing the employee in touch with the new employer; that the second was constantly in touch with the employee, understood what was going on and was thoroughly in sympathy with it; and that the third, under the employee's direction, obtained the customers. Although such persons were not made parties to the suit, the master admitted in evidence statements by them which were in support of the plaintiff's contentions. Held, that such statements were admissible without an amendment of the bill, as the evidence would justify the conclusion that the statements admitted were made by coconspirators to aid and accomplish the unlawful purpose of the employee.
Evidence properly was admitted, at the hearing of the suit above described, showing statements by former customers of the plaintiff accompanying acts of refusal further to deal with him and their reasons for such refusal.
BILL IN EQUITY, filed in the Superior Court on December 26, 1928, described in the opinion.
In the Superior Court, the suit was referred to a master. Material facts found, and rulings as to evidence made by the master are stated in the opinion. By order of Bishop, J., there were entered an interlocutory decree denying a motion to recommit the report to the master and overruling exceptions by the defendant to and confirming the report; and a final decree granting the plaintiff the relief stated in the opinion. The defendants appealed from both decrees.
F.J. Muldoon, for the defendants, submitted a brief. W.P. Dyer, for the plaintiff.
This is an appeal by the defendants from an interlocutory decree whereby the objections and exceptions of the defendants to the master's report were overruled, and their motion to recommit was denied, and the master's report was confirmed. This is also an appeal by the defendants from a final decree restraining and enjoining the defendant Bouley for the period of two years from the twenty-ninth day of September, 1928, from disclosing the name or names of any customers of the plaintiff to the defendant McGowan or to any of his employees, agents or servants or any other parties from soliciting, calling for or collecting any wet wash within certain territory described in the decree; enjoining the defendant McGowan from receiving any of the laundry business from such customers, which was solicited or collected by said Bouley or through his efforts; and awarding damages against both defendants with costs.
The bill of complaint was brought by the plaintiff, as the proprietor of a wet wash business, against Eugene P. Bouley, a driver formerly employed by him, and Walter H. McGowan, the proprietor of a towel supply and laundry business, by whom Bouley was employed, to enjoin the alleged violation by Bouley of a contract made by him with the plaintiff whereby Bouley agreed not to solicit or disclose the plaintiff's customers, or to do anything to injure the plaintiff's business after leaving his employ; and to enjoin McGowan from continuing to receive the laundry of the plaintiff's customers; and for damages against both defendants.
The evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial